Tải bản đầy đủ

Tính toán khả năng chịu lực của đài cọc (strength prediction of pile cap)

1

Strength Predictions of Pile Caps by a Strut-and-Tie Model Approach

2

JungWoong Park, Daniel Kuchma, and Rafael Souza

3

JungWoong Park, Daniel Kuchma, and Rafael Souze

4

Address:

5

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,

6


University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

7

2114 Newmark Laboratory, 205 N. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL, 61801, USA.

8
9

Corresponding author: Daniel Kuchma

10

Address:

11

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,

12

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

13

2106 Newmark Laboratory, 205 N. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL, 61801, USA.

14

(217)-333-1571 (Phone)

15

(217)-333-9464 (Fax)

16

kuchma@uiuc.edu


1


1

Abstract

2

In this paper, a strut-and-tie model approach is presented for calculating the strength of

3

reinforced concrete pile caps. The proposed method employs constitutive laws for cracked

4

reinforced concrete and considers strain compatibility. This method is used to calculate the load

5

carrying capacity of 116 pile caps that have been tested to failure in structural research

6

laboratories. This method is illustrated to provide more accurate estimates of behavior and

7

capacity than the special provisions for slabs and footings of 1999 American Concrete Institute

8

(ACI) code, the pile cap provisions in the 2002 CRSI Design Handbook, and the strut-and-tie

9

model provisions in either 2005 ACI code or the 2004 Canadian Standards Association (CSA)

10

A23.3. The comparison shows that the proposed method consistently well predicts the strengths

11

of pile caps with shear span-to-depth ratios ranging from 0.49 to 1.8 and concrete strengths less

12

than 41 MPa. The proposed approach provides valuable insight into the design and behavior of

13

pile caps.

14

Key words: strut-and-tie model, pile caps, footings, failure strength, shear strength

15
16

INTRODUCTION

17

The traditional design procedure for pile caps is the same sectional approach as that typically

18

used for the design of two-way slabs and spread footings in which the depth is selected to

19

provide adequate shear strength from concrete alone and the required amount of longitudinal

20

reinforcement is calculated using the engineering beam theory assumption that plane sections

21

remain plane. However, and as illustrated by simple elastic analyses, pile caps are three-

22

dimensional D(Discontinuity) Regions in which there is a complex variation in straining not

23

adequately captured by sectional approaches. A new design procedure for all D-Regions,

2


1

including pile caps, has recently been introduced into North American design practice (Canadian

2

Standards Association (CSA) 1984, the American Association of State Highway and

3

Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 1994, American Concrete Institute (ACI) 2002). This

4

procedure is based on a strut-and-tie approach in which an idealized load resisting truss is

5

designed to carry the imposed loads through the discontinuity region to its supports. For the

6

typically stocky pile cap, such as the four-pile cap shown in Fig. 1, this consists of compressive

7

concrete struts that run between the column and the piles and steel reinforcement ties that extend

8

between piles.

9

The strut-and-tie approach is a conceptually simple and generally regarded as an appropriate

10

approach for the design of all D-Regions. To enable its use in practice, it was necessary to

11

develop specific rules for defining geometry and stress limits in struts and ties that have been

12

incorporated into codes of practice. These rules and limits were principally derived from tests on

13

planar structures and they are substantially different for the two predominant strut-and-tie design

14

provisions in North America, those being the “Design of Concrete Structures” by the Canadian

15

Standards Association (CSA Committee A23.3 2004) and Appendix A “Strut-and-Tie Models” of

16

the “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete” of the American Concrete Institute

17

(ACI Committee 318 2005). An evaluation of the applicability of these strut-and-tie provisions to

18

pile caps should be made using available experimental test data. In addition, it would be useful to

19

assess if the design of pile caps would benefit from any additional specific rules or guidelines in

20

order to ensure a safe and effective design.

21

This paper presents an examination of existing design methods for pile caps as well as a new

22

strut-and-tie approach for calculating the capacity of pile caps. This new approach utilizes

23

constitutive laws for cracked reinforced concrete and considers both strain compatibility and

3


1

equilibrium. To validate the proposed method, it is also used to calculate the strength of 116 pile

2

caps with concrete strengths less than 41 MPa. These strengths are also compared with those

3

calculated using the special provisions for slabs and footings of ACI 318-99 (ACI Committee

4

318 1999), CRSI Design Handbook 2002 (CRSI 2002), the strut-and-tie model provisions used

5

in ACI 318-05 (ACI Committee 318 2005) and the Canadian Standards Association (CSA

6

Committee A23.3 2004), and the strut-and-tie model approach presented by Adebar and Zhou

7

(1996).

8
9
10
11

EXISTING PILE CAP DESIGN METHODS
This section provides a brief discussion of the aforementioned provisions and guidelines that
are used in North American practice for the design of pile caps.

12

ACI 318-99 and CSRI Handbook suggest that pile caps be designed using the same

13

sectional design approaches as those for slender footings supported on soil. This requires a

14

design for flexure at the face of columns as well as one and two-way shear checks. The CSRI

15

Handbook provides an additional relationship for evaluating Vc when the shear span is less than

16

one-half the depth of the member, w < d 2 , as presented in eq. [1] where c is the dimension of

17

a square column. These procedures are the most commonly used in North American design

18

practice.

19

[1]

20

where the shear section perimeter is bs = 4c .

(

)

⎛ d ⎞⎛ d ⎞
Vc = ⎜ ⎟⎜1 + ⎟ 0.33 f c′ bs d
c⎠
⎝ w ⎠⎝

(mm, N)

21

Appendix A of ACI 318-05 and the Canadian Standards Association provide provisions for

22

the design of all D(Discontinuity)-Regions in structural concrete, including pile caps. These

4


1

provisions include dimensioning rules as well as stress limits for evaluating the capacity of struts,

2

nodes, and the anchorage region of ties. They principally differ in the stress limits for struts. In

3

ACI 318-05, the compressive stress for the type of bottle shaped struts that occur in pile caps

4

would be 0.51 f c′ . The stress limit in struts by the CSA strut-and-tie provisions are a function of

5

the angle of the strut relative to the longitudinal axis, with the effect that the stress limit in 30, 45

6

and 60 degree struts with the assumption of tie strain ε s = 0.002 would be 0.31, 0.55, and

7

0.73 f c′ , respectively. The strut-and-tie provisions in these code specifications have only had

8

limited use in design practice.

9

Based on an analytical and experimental study of compression struts confined by plain

10

concrete, Adebar and Zhou (1993) concluded that the design of pile caps should include a check

11

on bearing strength that is a function of the amount of confinement and the aspect ratio of the

12

diagonal struts. Adebar and Zhou (1996) provided the following equations for the maximum

13

allowable bearing stress in nodal zones:

14

[2; 3; 4]

f b ≤ 0.6 f c′ + 6αβ

f c′ ; α =

1
3

(

)


1⎛h
A2 A1 − 1 ≤ 1.0 ; β = ⎜⎜ s − 1⎟⎟ ≤ 1.0
3 ⎝ bs


15

The parameters α and β account for the confinement of the compression strut and the

16

geometry of the diagonal strut. The ratio A2 A1 in eq. [3] is identical to that used in the ACI

17

code for calculating the bearing strength. The ratio hs bs is the aspect ratio (height-to-width) of

18

the strut. Adebar and Zhou suggested that the check described above is added to the traditional

19

section force approach for pile cap design.

20

The calculated strengths by these provisions and design guidelines are compared against the

21

test database following the presentation of the authors proposed strut-and-tie method and this test

22

database.

5


1
2

A THREE-DIMENSIONAL STRUT-AND-TIE MODEL APPROACH

3

To further evaluate the effectiveness of a strut-and-tie design approach for pile caps and to

4

identify means of improving design provisions, a methodology for evaluating the capacity of pile

5

caps was developed that considers strain compatibility and uses non-linear constitutive

6

relationship for evaluating the strength of struts. In this procedure, the three-dimensional strut-

7

and-tie model shown in Fig. 1 was used for the idealized load resisting truss in a four-pile cap.

8

This model is used for all pile caps examined in this paper. The shear span-to-depth ratio of most

9

test specimens selected in this study is less than one. Since the mode of failure is not known for

10

all test specimens, the proposed model considers the possibility of crushing of the compression

11

zone at the base of the column and yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement (ties). For all truss

12

models used in this study, the angle between longitudinal ties and diagonal struts is greater than

13

25 degrees; satisfying the ACI 318-05 limit. The details of the proposed strut-and-tie approach

14

are now presented.

15
16
17

Effective depth of concrete strut

The effective strut width is assumed based on the available concrete area and the anchorage

18

conditions of the strut. The effective area of diagonal strut at the top node is taken as

19

[5]

20

where c is the thickness of the square column and k is derived from the bending theory for a

21

single reinforced section as follows

22

[6]

Ad =


c ⎛ c
⎜⎜
cos θ z + kd sin θ z ⎟⎟
2⎝ 2


k=

(nρ )2 + 2nρ − nρ

6


1

and where n is the ratio of steel to concrete elastic moduli with E c taken as follows (Martinez

2

1982)

3

[7]

4

The inclination angles between the diagonal struts and x-, y-, and z-axis are expressed as θ x ,

5

θ y , and θ z respectively as shown in Fig. 1. These angles represent the direction cosines of a

6

diagonal strut. The effective area of a diagonal strut at the bottom node is taken as

7

[8]

8

where d p is pile diameter and h is overall height of the pile cap. The effective area of

9

diagonal strut is taken as the smaller of eqs. [5] and [8]. The effective depth of a horizontal strut

10

is taken as h 4 based on the suggestion of Paulay and Priestley (1992) on the depth of the

11

flexural compression zone of the elastic column as follows

12

[9]

⎪⎧ 4730 f c′ for f c′ ≤ 21 MPa
Ec = ⎨
⎪⎩3320 f c′ + 6900 for f c′ > 21 MPa

Ad =

π
4

[

d p d p cosθ z + 2(h − d )sin θ z

]


N ⎞⎟
wc = ⎜ 0.25 + 0.85
h

⎟ c

A
f
g
c



13
14
15

Force equilibrium

The strut-and-tie model shown in Fig. 1 is statically determinate and thus member forces can

16

be calculated from the equilibrium equations only as given below:

17

[10]

Fd =

18

[11]

Fx = Fd cos θ x

19

[12]

Fy = Fd cosθ y

P
4 cos θ y

7


1

where P is column load; Fd is the compressive forces in the diagonal strut; Fx and Fy are

2

respectively the member forces in the x- and y-axis horizontal struts and ties. Since the strut-and-

3

tie method is a full member design procedure; flexure and shear are not explicitly considered.

4
5

Constitutive laws

6

Cracked reinforced concrete can be treated as an orthotropic material with its principal axes

7

corresponding to the directions of the principal average tensile and compressive strains. Cracked

8

concrete subjected to high tensile strains in the direction normal to the compression is observed

9

to be softer than concrete in a standard cylinder test (Hsu and Zhang 1997, Vecchio and Collins

10

1982, 1986, 1993). This phenomenon of strength and stiffness reduction is commonly referred to

11

as compression softening. Applying this softening effect to the strut-and-tie model, it is

12

recognized that the tensile straining perpendicular to the compressive strut will reduce the

13

capacity of the concrete strut to resist compressive stresses. Multiple compression softening

14

models were used in this study to investigate the sensitively of the results to the selected model.

15

All models were found to provide similarly good results as will be illustrated later in the paper.

16

The compression softening model proposed by Hsu and Zhang (1997) was selected for the base

17

comparisons and is now described, but it has been illustrated by the authors in a earlier paper

18

(Park and Kuchma 2006) that different compression softening models can be similarly used. The

19

stress of concrete strut is determined from the following equations proposed by Hsu and Zhang.

20

21

[13]

⎡ ⎛ε
σ d = ξ f c′ ⎢2⎜⎜ d
⎢ ⎝ ξε 0


[14]

⎡ ⎛ ε (ξε ) − 1 ⎞ 2 ⎤
0

⎟⎟ ⎥
σ d = ξ f c ⎢1 − ⎜⎜ d
⎢⎣ ⎝ 2 ξ − 1 ⎠ ⎥⎦

⎞ ⎛ εd
⎟⎟ − ⎜⎜
⎠ ⎝ ξε 0

8


⎟⎟


2






for

for

εd
≤1
ξε 0
εd
>1
ξε 0


ξ=

5.8
f c′

1



0 .9

1

[15]

2

where ε 0 is a concrete cylinder strain corresponding to the cylinder strength f c′ , which can be

3

defined approximately as (Foster and Gilbert 1996)

4

[16]

5

The response of the ties is based on the linear elastic perfectly plastic assumption.

6

[17]

7

where Ast and Fst are the area and yielding force of horizontal steel tie in the x- or y-axes.

1 + 400ε r

⎛ f c′ − 20 ⎞

⎝ 80 ⎠

ε 0 = 0.002 + 0.001 ⎜

1 + 400ε r

for 20 ≤ f c′ ≤ 100 MPa

Fst = E s Ast ε st ≤ Fst

8

The proposed method considers a tension stiffening effect for evaluating the force and strain in

9

steel ties. Vecchio and Collins (1986) suggested the following relationship for evaluating the

10

average tensile stress in cracked concrete:

11

[18]

12

Taking f cr as 0.33 fc′ and ε r as 0.002, the tension force resisted by concrete tie is given by

13

[19]

14

where Act is the effective area of concrete tie which is taken as

15

[20]

16

where l e is the pile spacing.

f ct =

f cr
1 + 200ε r

Fct = 0.20 f c′ Act

Act =

d ⎛⎜ l e d p ⎞⎟
+
4 ⎜⎝ 2
2 ⎟⎠

17
18
19
20

Compatibility relations

The strain compatibility relation used in this study is the sum of normal strain in two
perpendicular directions which is an invariant:

9


εh + εv = εr + εd

1

[21]

2

where ε d is the compressive strain in a diagonal strut and ε r is a tensile strain in the direction

3

perpendicular to the strut axis. Since horizontal and vertical web reinforcements were not

4

available from test data, ε h and ε v are conservatively taken as 0.002 in eq. [21].

5
6

COMPARISON WITH TEST RESULTS

7

Existing test data

8

Blevot and Fremy (1967) tested 59 four-pile caps. The majority of the four-pile caps were

9

approximately half-scale specimens, and eight of them were full-scale with 750-1000 mm overall

10

heights. Since one of main objectives of this work was to verify a truss analogy method, they

11

used different reinforcement details including no main reinforcement, and either uniformly

12

distributed or bunched reinforcement between piles. Clarke (1973) tested 15 square four-pile

13

caps with overall heights of 450 mm, all approximately half-scale. Two specimens had diagonal

14

main reinforcement, three had main reinforcement bunched over the piles, and the remaining ten

15

had uniformly distributed main reinforcement. The main variables in this study were pile spacing,

16

reinforcement layout, and anchorage type. He reported that the first cracks formed on the

17

centerlines of the vertical faces, and these cracks progressed rapidly upwards forming a

18

cruciform pattern, and finally each cap split into four blocks. Such observations point strongly to

19

a bending failure mode developing. However, though Clarke contended that the majority of the

20

caps failed in shear, the authors agree with Bloodworth, Jackson, and Lee (2003) that many of

21

these failure modes may be more accurately described as combined bending and shear failure.

22

Sabnis and Gogate (1984) tested nine small-scale four-pile caps with 152 mm overall heights, of

23

which one was unreinforced. They studied how the quantity of uniformly distributed longitudinal

10


1

reinforcement influences the shear capacity of deep pile caps. They reported that cracking of the

2

four outer faces was about the same in all the specimens and are indicative of combinations of

3

deep beam failure with very steep shear cracks and punching shear failures of slabs. They also

4

observed that some of this cracking may be prevented by the use of horizontal reinforcement on

5

the vertical faces of the caps; this reinforcement is only of secondary benefit and might not

6

substantially enhance the strength of the pile cap. Adebar, Kuchma, and Collins (1990) tested six

7

full-scale pile caps to study the performance of the strut-and-model for pile cap design. Four of

8

their tests were on diamond-shaped caps, one was on a cruciform-shaped cap, and one was on a

9

rectangular six-pile cap. The test results demonstrated that the strain distributions are highly

10

nonlinear both prior to cracking and after cracking. They reported that the failure occurs after a

11

compression strut split longitudinally due to the transverse tension caused by spreading of the

12

compressive stresses and that the maximum bearing stress is a good indicator of the likelihood of

13

a strut splitting failure. From the pile caps they tested, the maximum bearing stress at failure had

14

a lower limit of about 1.1 f c′ . They concluded that the strut-and-tie models accurately represent

15

the behavior of deep pile caps and correctly suggest that the load at which a lightly reinforced

16

pile cap fails in two-way shear depends on the quantity of longitudinal reinforcement. Suzuki,

17

Otsuki, and Tsubana (1998, 1999), Suzuki, Otsuki, and Tsuchiya (2000), and Suzuki and Otsuki

18

(2002) tested 94 four-pile caps with the reinforcement bunched over the piles or distributed in a

19

uniform grid. The main variables investigated in tests were the influence of edge distance, bar

20

arrangement, taper, and concrete strength on the failure mode and the ultimate strength. They

21

reported that it was experimentally observed that the ultimate strength of the pile caps with a

22

uniform grid arrangement was lower than that of pile caps with an equivalent amount of

23

reinforcement concentrate (bunched) between the pile bearings. Though pile caps may be

11


1

designed to any shape depending on the pile arrangement, rectangular four-pile caps previously

2

tested were only chosen for examination in this study. Therefore, the 116 pile cap specimens

3

tested by Clarke (1973), and Suzuki, Otsuki, and Tsubata (1998, 1999), Suzuki, Otsuki, and

4

Tsuchiya (2000), Suzuki and Otsuki (2002), and Sabnis and Gogate (1984) were selected to

5

validate the proposed method.

6
7

Procedure for Evaluating the Capacity of Pile Caps

8

The procedure for calculating the capacity of piles caps by the authors proposed method uses

9

the compatibility, equilibrium, and constitutive relationships as described above and is as

10

follows:

11

1. According to the member forces calculated from eq. [10] to eq. [12], ε d and ε r are found

12

for P using eq. [13] and eq. [21], respectively. A concrete softening coefficient ξ is

13

calculated from eq. [15] using ε r .

14

2. The updated value of σ d is calculated from eq. [13]. If the difference between the two σ d

15

values is larger than the defined tolerance, the steps are repeated until convergence has been

16

achieved. Nominal strength by failure of diagonal strut can be estimated from

17

[22]

18

Pn = 4ξ f c′ Ad cos θ z

3. The nominal strength by failure of horizontal concrete strut is taken by
Pn = 0.85 f c′

hc cos θ z
2 cos θ x

19

[23]

20

and, the nominal strength by tension failure mode can be expressed as

21

[24]

(

Pn = 2 f y As + 4 Fct

cos θ z
) cos
θ

x

22

where f y and As are the yield strength and cross-sectional area of the bottom longitudinal

12


1

reinforcement. The strength of the pile cap by a tension failure mode is the column load to cause

2

yielding of the reinforcement and fracture of a concrete tie.

3

4. The predicted strength by this method is the minimum value of the nominal strengths

4

computed from the different failure modes, which are crushing or splitting of the diagonal

5

concrete strut, crushing of the compression zone at the base of the column load, and yielding of

6

longitudinal reinforcement.

7
8

Strength prediction

9

The calculated strengths by the 6 methods (special provisions for slabs and footings of ACI

10

318-99 and in CRSI Design Handbook 2002, and the strut-and-tie methods in ACI 318-05, CSA

11

A23.3, by Adebar and Zhou, and by the Authors) are compared with the measured capacity of

12

the 116 selected pile caps test results. The details of the test specimens and strength ratios

13

( Ptest Pn ) are presented for each of the 6 groups of test results in Tables 1-6, and collectively in

14

Table 8 and Figs. 2-3. In all figures, the shear span a is defined by the distance from pile

15

centre-line to column centre-line measured parallel to pile cap side. Table 7 shows the specimens

16

which were reported to have failed by shear. Some of specimens do not satisfy the code

17

minimum depth of 305 mm for footings on piles and the code minimum percentage of

18

longitudinal reinforcement. Especially, the overall height of the specimens of Sabnis and Gogate

19

(1984) is 152 mm which is about a half of code minimum footing depth, and 18 specimens of

20

Suzuki, Otsuki, and Tsubata (1999) are tapered pile caps. However, the comparative evaluation

21

still used this test data for the purpose of comparing the different design approaches. Tapered

22

pile caps can be designed using strut-and-tie model as long as the inclination of tapered pile cap

23

is small enough to include sufficient concrete area for the diagonal struts.

13


1

Fig. 2 presents the strength ratios ( Ptest Pn ) as a function of shear span-to-depth ratio for the

2

six aforementioned methods: (a) Special provisions for slabs and footings of ACI 318-99 Code;

3

(b) CRSI Design Handbook 2002; (c) Strut-and-tie model of ACI 318-05; (d) Strut-and-tie model

4

of CSA A23.3; (e) Strut-and-tie model approach of Adebar and Zhou; and (f) Proposed strut-

5

and-tie model approach by the authors. Based on these comparisons, the following initial

6

observations can be made. The special provisions in ACI 318-99 and the design formula of CRSI

7

Design Handbook 2002 lead to the most conservative estimates of strength with very reasonable

8

coefficients of variation for the range of tested pile caps. The strengths calculated by the strut-

9

and-tie provisions in Appendix A of ACI 318-05 and CSA A23.3 provide conservative estimates

10

of capacities and somewhat larger scatter of strength ratios. The methods presented by Adebar

11

and Zhou (1996) and the authors are less conservative, but still safe, with a scatter similar to that

12

by the ACI and CSRI special provisions for footings and slabs.

13

The above observations were referred to as initial observations for a more complete

14

examination of the behavior of the tested pile caps leads to a somewhat different assessment of

15

the accuracy and safety of these methods. The source of the conservatism of the first four

16

methods is that the calculated strengths, Pn , was usually controlled by the calculated flexural

17

capacity of the test structures. These calculated capacities have been observed to be unduly

18

conservative due to inaccuracies in the estimated flexural lever arm and ignoring tensile

19

contributions of the concrete. Therefore, in order to evaluate the shear provisions and the strut

20

and nodal zone stress limits of these methods, it is useful to examine the strength ratios for

21

members that did not fail by reinforcement yielding and in which the calculated strengths are not

22

limited by the calculated flexural capacity or strength of the tension ties.

23

Fig. 3 presents the strength ratios ( Ptest Pn ) as a function of shear span-to-depth ratio for the

14


1

six aforementioned methods for only those 33 pile caps that were reported by the authors to have

2

failed in shear and before reinforcement yielding and in which the nominal strength, Pn , is

3

controlled by the calculated shear strength or strength of struts and nodes. As shown in Fig. 3,

4

this leads to a very different impression of the accuracy and safety of these methods. The

5

calculated shear capacities by ACI 318-99 (Fig. 3a) and CSRI (Fig. 3b) were unconservative in

6

17 and 19 of the 33 cases, respectively. The strut and tie provisions by ACI 318-05 (Fig. 3c) and

7

the CSA A23.3 (Fig. 3d) were unconservative in 5 and 12 of the 33 cases, respectively. Thus, it

8

can be concluded that while these four methods are conservative due to their underprediction of

9

flexural and tie capacities, that the shear, concrete strut, and nodal zone capacities predicted by

10

these methods are unconservative.

11

Fig. 3(e) examines the accuracy of the strut-and-tie model approach proposed by Adebar and

12

Zhou (1996). The shear capacity predicted by this method is limited by the nodal zone bearing

13

stresses given by eq. [2], while the flexural capacity can be described by the column load that

14

would cause yielding of the steel tie of the strut-and-tie model. Adebar and Zhou (1996) assumed

15

that the lower nodes of strut-and-tie model were located at the center of the piles at the level of

16

the longitudinal reinforcement, while the upper nodal zones were assumed to be at the top

17

surface of the pile cap. This method does not overpredict any of the pile cap strengths and the

18

predictions are reasonably conservative as the strength of most pile caps was limited by the

19

conservative method for calculating the flexural capacity. However, the bearing capacity

20

requirement provides unconservative estimations of the strengths for many specimens which

21

were reported to have failed by shear as shown in Fig. 3(e). The shear span-to-depth ratios of

22

most test specimens reviewed in this study is less than one, and the majority of the specimens

23

may be more accurately described as combined bending and shear failure due to interpretation of

15


1

failure modes. The nodal zone bearing stress limit calculated in eq. [2] results in similar

2

maximum bearing strengths as calculated in the ACI Code in which the stress limit is

3

φ (0.85 f c′ ) A2 A1 . Fig. 3(e) illustrates that the bearing strength limit of this method is not a good

4

indicator for pile cap strengths as has been reported by Cavers and Fenton (2004).

5

Figs. 2(f) and 3(f) examine the accuracy of the procedure developed by the authors. The

6

calculated capacities by the proposed method are both accurate and conservative with limited

7

scatter or trends for pile caps with shear span-to-depth ratios ranging from 0.49 to 1.8 and

8

concrete strength less than 41 MPa. The proposed method also provides reasonably conservative

9

strength predictions for all the specimens that were reported to have failed in shear.

10
11

CONCLUSIONS

12

In this paper, a three-dimensional strut-and-tie model approach has been presented for

13

calculating the load-carrying capacity of pile caps. The failure strength predictions for 116 tested

14

pile caps by this method are compared with those of six methods

15

1. The special provisions for slabs and footings of ACI 318-99 and the CSRI methods

16

provided the most conservative strength predictions. This conservatism is due to the particularly

17

low estimates of flexural capacity by these methods. If the shear provisions of these methods are

18

used to predict the capacity of those members that are reported to have failed in shear, then these

19

shear provisions are found to be quite unconservative; the capacity of more than one-half of the

20

tested shear-critical pile caps are over predicted.

21

2. The strut-and-tie model approaches in Appendix A of ACI 318-05 and the CSA A23.3 did

22

not overpredict the measured strengths of any of the pile caps. However, the provisions of these

23

methods for calculating the strength of struts and nodes by these methods were found to be

16


1

somewhat unconservative for those members that did not fail by reinforcement yielding.

2

3. The strut-and-tie approach by Adebar and Zhou did not overpredict the strength of any of

3

the pile caps that failed by yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement and these strength

4

predictions

5

unconservative estimations of the shear strengths for many of the test specimens that were

6

reported to have failed by shear.

were

reasonably

accurate.

However,

this

approach

provided

somewhat

7

4. The calculated capacities by the proposed method were both accurate and conservative with

8

little scatter or trends for tested pile caps with shear span-to-depth ratios ranging from 0.49 to 1.8

9

and concrete strength less than 41 MPa. The success of the proposed method indicates that a

10

strut-and-tie design philosophy is appropriate for the design of pile caps.

17


1

List of symbols:

2

a d ,h

3

the distance from pile centre-line to column center-line measured parallel to pile cap
side, effective depth, overall height

4

Ad , Act

effective areas of diagonal strut and concrete tie

5

As

cross-sectional area of main reinforcement

6

bo

perimeter of critical section

7

c , d p , l e column size, pile diameter, pile spacing

8

f c′

compressive strength of concrete cylinder

9

f cr

concrete tensile strength

10

f ct

tensile stress of concrete tie

11

f cu

effective strength of concrete strut

12

fy

yield strength of reinforcement

13

Fct

nominal strength of concrete tie

14

Fd , Fx , F y the forces of diagonal, x, and y-directional members

15

w

16

θ x , θ y , θ z inclination angle between diagonal strut and x, y, and z-axis

17

θs

inclination angel between diagonal strut and steel tie

18

wc , wd

effective width of horizontal strut and diagonal strut

19

σd

compressive stress of concrete strut

20

ε0

strain at peak stress of standard cylinder

21

εs

tensile strain of steel tie

22

εh ,εv

strain of horizontal direction and vertical direction

distance between column face and center line of pile

18


1

εd

compressive strain of diagonal strut

2

εr

tensile strain of the direction perpendicular to diagonal strut

19


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

References:

ACI Committee 318. 1999. Building code requirements for reinforced concrete (ACI 318-99)
and commentary (ACI 318R-99). American Concrete Institute.
ACI Committee 318. 2002. Building code requirements for reinforced concrete (ACI 318-02)
and commentary (ACI 318R-02). American Concrete Institute.
ACI Committee 318. 2005. Building code requirements for reinforced concrete (ACI 318-05)
and commentary (ACI 318R-05). American Concrete Institute.
CSA Committee A23.3. 1984. Design of concrete structures for buildings. Standard A23.3M84, Canadian Standards Association.
CSA Committee A23.3. 2004. Design of concrete structures for buildings. Standard A23.3M04, Canadian Standards Association.
AASHTO. 1994. AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications, American Association of State
Highway Transportation Officials.
Schlaich, J., Schäfer, K., and Jennewein, M. 1987. Toward a consistent design of reinforced
structural concrete. Journal of Prestressed Concrete Institute, 32(3): 74-150.
Adebar, P., and Zhou, Z. 1993. Bearing strength of compressive struts confined by plain
concrete. ACI Structural Journal, 90(5): 534-541.
Adebar, P., and Zhou, Z. 1996. Design of deep pile caps by strut-and-tie models. ACI
Structural Journal, 93(4): 437-448.

20

CRSI. 2002. CRSI Design Handbook, Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute.

21

Martinez, S., NiIson, A. H., and Slate, F. O. 1982. Spirally-reinforced high-strength concrete

22

columns. Research Report No. 82-10, Department of Structural Engineering, Cornell University,

23

Ithaca.

20


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N. 1992. Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry
buildings, John Wiley and Sons.
Hsu, T. T. C., and Zhang, L. X. B. 1997. Nonlinear analysis of membrane elements by fixedangle softened-truss model. ACI Structural Journal, 94(5): 483-492.
Foster, S. J., and Gilbert, R. I. 1996. The design of nonflexural members with normal and
high-strength concretes. ACI Structural Journal, 93(1): 3-10.
Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P. 1986. Modified compression field theory for reinforced
concrete elements subjected to shear. ACI Journal, 83(2): 219-231.
Blévot, J., and Frémy, R. 1967. Semelles sur Pieux,” Annales de l'Institut Technique du
Batiment et des Travaux Publics, 20(230): 223-295.
Clarke, J. L. 1973. Behavior and design of pile caps with four piles. Cement and Concrete
Association, Report No. 42.489, London.
Sabnis, G. M., and Gogate, A. B. 1984. Investigation of thick slab (pile cap) behavior. ACI
Journal, 81(1): 35-39.
Adebar, P., Kuchma, D., and Collins, M. P. 1990. Strut-and-tie models for the design of pile
caps: An experimental study. ACI Structural Journal, 87(1): 81-92.
Suzuki, K., Otsuki, K., and Tsubata, T. 1998. Influence of bar arrangement on ultimate
strength of four-pile caps. Transactions of the Japan Concrete Institute, 20: 195–202.
Suzuki, K., Otsuki, K., and Tsubata, T. 1999. Experimental study on four-pile caps with taper.
Transactions of the Japan Concrete Institute, 21: 327-334.
Suzuki, K., Otsuki, K., and Tsuchiya, T. 2000. Influence of edge distance on failure
mechanism of pile caps. Transactions of the Japan Concrete Institute, 22: 361-368.

21


1
2

Suzuki, K., and Otsuki, K. 2002. Experimental study on corner shear failure of pile caps.
Transactions of the Japan Concrete Institute, 23: 303-310.

3

Bloodworth, A. G., Jackson, P. A., and Lee, M. M. K. 2003. Strength of reinforced concrete

4

pile caps. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Structures & Buildings, 156: 347–

5

358.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Cavers, W., and Fenton, G. A. 2004. An evaluation of pile cap design methods in accordance
with the Canadian design standard. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 31: 109-119.
Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P. 1982. Response of reinforced concrete to in-plane shear and
normal stresses. Report No. 82-03, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P. 1993. Compression response of cracked reinforced concrete.
ASCE, Journal of Structural Engineering, 119(12): 3590-3610.
Park, J. W., and Kuchma, D. 2006. Strut-and-tie model analysis for strength prediction of deep
beams. ACI Structural Journal, Submitted.

22


1

Table captions:

2

Table 1 – Test data of Clarke (1973)

3

Table 2 – Test data of Suzuki, Otsuki, and Tsubata (1998)

4

Table 3 – Test data of Suzuki, Otsuki, and Tsubata (1999)

5

Table 4 – Test data of Suzuki, Otsuki, and Tsuchiya (2000)

6

Table 5 – Test data of Suzuki, and Otsuki (2002)

7

Table 6 – Test data of Sabnis and Gogate (1984)

8

Table 7 – Test specimens reported to have failed by shear

9

Table 8 – Ratio of measured to predicted strength

23


1

Figure captions:

2

Fig. 1 – A strut-and-tie model for pile caps

3

Fig. 2 – Ratio of measured to predicted strength with respect to shear span-depth ratio: (a)

4

Special provisions for slabs and footings of ACI 318-99; (b) CRSI Design Handbook 2002; (c)

5

Strut-and-tie model of ACI 318-05; (d) Strut-and-tie model of CSA A23.3; (e) Strut-and-tie

6

model approach of Adebar and Zhou; (f) Proposed strut-and-tie model approach

7

Fig. 3 – Ratio of measured to calculated strengths by shear failure mode with respect to shear

8

span-depth ratio: (a) Special provisions for slabs and footings of ACI 318-99; (b) CRSI Design

9

Handbook 2002; (c) Strut-and-tie model of ACI 318-05; (d) Strut-and-tie model of CSA A23.3;

10

(e) Strut-and-tie model approach of Adebar and Zhou; (f) Proposed strut-and-tie model approach

24


Table 1 – Test data of Clarke (1973)
pile
cap
A1
A2
A4
A5
A7
A8
A9
A10
A11
A12
B1
B2
B3

cap size
f c′
(MPa) (mm×mm)
21.3
950×950
27.2
950×950
21.4
950×950
26.6
950×950
24.2
950×950
27.2
950×950
26.6
950×950
18.8
950×950
18.0
950×950
25.3
950×950
26.7
750×750
24.5
750×750
35.0
750×750

le

(a)

(mm)
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
400
400
400

bar
arrangement

10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
8
10
6

grid
bunched
grid
bunched
grid
bunched
grid
grid
grid
grid
grid
grid
grid

Note: (a) number of D10 bars at both of x and y direction; pile spacing

h =450 mm, effective depth d

=405 mm, column width

le ;

yield strength of reinforcement

f y =410 MPa, overall height

c =200 mm, pile diameter d p =200 mm for all specimens

Table 2 – Test data of Suzuki, Otsuki, and Tsubata (1998)
pile cap
BP-20-1
BP-20-2
BPC-20-1
BPC-20-2
BP-25-1
BP-25-2
BPC-25-1
BPC-25-2
BP-20-30-1
BP-20-30-2
BPC-20-30-1
BPC-20-30-2
BP-30-30-1
BP-30-30-2
BPC-30-30-1
BPC-30-30-2
BP-30-25-1
BP-30-25-2
BPC-30-25-1
BPC-30-25-2
BDA-70-90-1
BDA-70-90-2
BDA-80-90-1
BDA-80-90-2
BDA-90-90-1
BDA-90-90-2
BDA-100-90-1
BDA-100-90-2

f c′
(MPa)
21.3
20.4
21.9
19.9
22.6
21.5
18.9
22.0
29.1
29.8
29.8
29.8
27.3
28.5
28.9
30.9
30.9
26.3
29.1
29.2
29.1
30.2
29.1
29.3
29.5
31.5
29.7
31.3

cap size
(mm×mm)
900×900
900×900
900×900
900×900
900×900
900×900
900×900
900×900
800×800
800×800
800×800
800×800
800×800
800×800
800×800
800×800
800×800
800×800
800×800
800×800
700×900
700×900
800×900
800×900
900×900
900×900
1000×900
1000×900

le

h

(mm)
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500

(mm)
200
200
200
200
250
250
250
250
200
200
200
200
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300

d

c

(mm)
150
150
150
150
200
200
200
200
150
150
150
150
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250

(mm)

Note: (a) number of D10 bars at both of x and y direction; pile diameter

300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250

(a)
8
8
8
8
10
10
10
10
6
6
6
6
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8

f y (MPa)
x-dir.
413
413
413
413
413
413
413
413
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
356
356
356
356
356
356
356
356

d p =150 mm for all specimens

1

y-dir.
413
413
413
413
413
413
413
413
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
405
345
345
345
345
345
345
345
345

bar
arrangement
grid
grid
bunched
bunched
grid
grid
bunched
bunched
grid
grid
bunched
bunched
grid
grid
bunched
bunched
grid
grid
bunched
bunched
grid
grid
grid
grid
grid
grid
grid
grid


Tài liệu bạn tìm kiếm đã sẵn sàng tải về

Tải bản đầy đủ ngay

×